People v. Hayes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hayes

34 A.D.2d 548, 309 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5365

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 9, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.2d 548 (People v. Hayes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Hayes, 34 A.D.2d 548, 309 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5365 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered January 27, 1969 upon resentence; the appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, entered November 25, 1968, as denied in part defendant’s coram nobis application with respect to the original judgment (the order granted the application to the extent of granting a hearing on a limited issue concerning a prior Oklahoma conviction and appointing counsel for the hearing). Order modified, on the law, by striking out the third ordering paragraph thereof, which denied the [549]*549application in part, and substituting therefor a direction that a hearing be held to determine whether defendant was fully represented by counsel on his prior conviction in Texas in 1958. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from. Appeal from judgment held in abeyance pending determination of the hearing directed herein. In our opinion, defendant’s contention that he was represented only upon sentencing in Texas is not incredible as a matter of law; nor is it refuted by unquestionable documentary evidence (cf. People v. Randolph, 25 N Y 2d 765; People v. Bagley, 23 N Y 2d 814; People v. Franklin, 14 A D 2d 985, 986). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Martuscello, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered January 27, 1969 upon resentence; the appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, entered November 25, 1968, as denied in part defendant’s coram nobis application with respect to the original judgment (the order granted the application to the extent of granting a hearing on a limited issue concerning a prior Oklahoma conviction and appointing counsel for the hearing). Order modified, on the law, by striking out the third ordering paragraph thereof, which denied the [549]*549application in part, and substituting therefor a direction that a hearing be held to determine whether defendant was fully represented by counsel on his prior conviction in Texas in 1958. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from. Appeal from judgment held in abeyance pending determination of the hearing directed herein. In our opinion, defendant’s contention that he was represented only upon sentencing in Texas is not incredible as a matter of law; nor is it refuted by unquestionable documentary evidence (cf. People v. Randolph, 25 N Y 2d 765; People v. Bagley, 23 N Y 2d 814; People v. Franklin, 14 A D 2d 985, 986). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Martuscello, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 548, 309 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hayes-nyappdiv-1970.